The court emphasized the importance of providing accurate and complete information in the application for dealership agreements, and upheld the contractual grounds for termination based on the incorrect/incomplete information provided by the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

The writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing.

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the order as contained in letter no. PK/LPG/TER-2001 dated 17.01.2020 issued under the signature of the respondent no. 3 – the Deputy General Manager, Jamshedpur LPG Regional Office, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), whereby the LPG dealership (Domestic & Commercial) agreement dated 04.06.2013 (renewed vide agreement dated 03.06.2018) executed between the petitioner and HPCL, has been terminated. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent-HPCL and its authorities to allow the petitioner to continue with the said dealership/distributorship agreement.

2. During pendency of the writ petition, I.A No. 327 of 2021 was filed by one Krishna Kumar Singh – father of the respondent no. 6 for impleading him as a party respondent. This Court vide order dated 23.03.2021, disposed of the said interlocutory application observing that since his son (the respondent no. 6 herein) had already been arrayed as respondent no. 6 in the present case, there was no reason to implead him as a party respondent. However he was permitted to address this Court as an intervener during the hearing of the present writ petition.

3. Another I.A No. 2559 of 2021 was filed by one Rakesh Kumar Singh – brother of the respondent no. 6 seeking intervention and for impleading him as party respondent. The said interlocutory application was also disposed of by this Court vide order dated 02.08.2021 rejecting his prayer for impleading him as party respondent, however, he was permitted to address this Court through his counsel during hearing of the present writ petition.

4. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the respondent-HPCL along with other public sector oil marketing companies published an advertisement on 17.10.2009 (corrigendum issued on 28.10.2009) in a Hindi Daily “Dainik Bhaskar”, Ranchi Edition for appointment of LPG distributors under various categories at locations situated in different districts across the State of Jharkhand including the location situated at Hunterganj, Gram Panchayat - Khuntikewal Khurd, District-Chatra in open category under Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) Scheme. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for the distributorship in Chatra district on 26.11.2009. In the meantime, for the purpose of constructing of a gas godown, the petitioner purchased the land from her husband appertaining to Khata No. 1, Plot No. 51, measuring an area of 22 decimals, out of 31 decimals of land belonging to his share situated at Village- Khuntikewal Khurd, District-Chatra through registered sale deed dated 18.08.2010 and thereafter the said land was also mutated in her name vide order dated 04.09.2010 passed in Mutation Case No. 745 of 2010-11. The respondent no. 6 – Rajesh Kumar Singh challenged the order of mutation before the LRDC, Chatra by filing Civil Misc. Case No. 11 of 2011-12 which was allowed vide order dated 13.08.2014 and the order of mutation passed by the Circle Officer, Hunterganj was set aside. However, vide order dated 27.11.2015 passed in Mutation Appeal No. 05/2014-15 filed by the petitioner, the Additional Collector, Chatra set aside the order of the LRDC, Chatra and confirmed the order of mutation, which attained finality. The petitioner was issued letter of intent dated 26.05.2012 and subsequently letter of appointment dated 04.06.2013 was also issued appointing the petitioner and her husband as RGGLV to carry out distributorship in the name and style of M/s Maa Bhagwati HP Gas Gramin Vitrak at location Hunterganj, District-Chatra, Jharkhand under open category on the terms and conditions contained in the HP Gas (LPG) Distributorship (Domestic & Commercial) Agreement (hereinafter referred to as “the Agreement”). The descendants of other coparceners namely, Ayodhaya Prasad Singh Kanhaiya